Duvasi Ramulu vs State of Andhra Pradesh

V. Bhaskara Rao, J.—This is an appeal arising from the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in S.C. No. 161/1991, dated 8-7-1993, convicting the appellant u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life.

The prosecution case is that the accused is the eldest son of the victims viz., Maisaiah and Chennamma while P.W. 1 is their third son and Pochiah is second son and Shankariah and Jangiah are younger sons. The accused and Pochiah were already married and they were living separately. P.Ws. 1 and 2 younger brothers of P.W. 1 were living with their parents (victims) jointly. The accused has been demanding partition of the lands eversince the date of his marriage, but the deceased was reluctant as three of his younger sons were yet to be married. There were disputes in that connection. That is said to be the motive for the accused to administer poison in the todday bottles on, 15-1-1990, which happened to be Sankranti festival day. The accused had been to the house of his parents in the evening carrying two bottles of poisoned today and made his father and mother to consume the same and they became unconscious within 5 or 10 minutes, P.W. 1 informed the same to one Gandiah, his paternal uncle, and while the victims were being shifted to Government Hospital, Nedunur in a double bullock cart, they breathed their last. Then the dead bodies were brought back to the village. On 16-1-1990 at about 2 p.m. Durvasi Gandhiah, elder brother of deceased Maisaiah, lodged a report with the police alleging that the accused has been demanding partition of lands; that the deceased Maisaiah refused to divide the properties on the ground that younger sons were yet to be married and that thereupon the accused had stated that he would kill the deceased and thus, he made Maisaiah and Chennamma to drink poisoned, toddy on 15-1-1990 and that they died on account of poisoning. A case in crime Nos. 4 and 5 of 1990 u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code has been registered by P.W. 9, Sub-Inspector of Police, Maheswaram Police Station.

P.W. 10 took up the investigation and conducted a panchanama of scene of offence Ex. P9 and seized the toddy bottles containing turbid liquor and also a plastic tin and held inquest over the dead bodies of the deceased in the presence of P.W. 8 and others and P.W. 7 conducted the post mortem examination on 17-1-1990. After receiving reports from Forensic Science Laboratory as to the contents of viscera of the deceased, P.W. 7 issued post mortem reports Exs. P6 and P7 to the effect that the death of Maisaiah and Chennamma was on account of Organo Phosphorus poisoning and that alcohol was found. P.W. 11 Inspector of Police, Pahadi Sharief, completed the investigation and filed the charge-sheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Ibranimpatan.

The learned Magistrate took it on file as PRC. No. 10/1991 and committed the case to the Court of Session Rana Reddy District, after satisfying that it is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. It is accordingly registered as S.C. No. 161/1991 and made over to the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The accused was on bail during trial. On his appearance, two charges u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code were framed, (1) for causing the death of his father Maisaiah and (2) for the death of his mother Chennamma. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses in all and got Exs. P1 to P13 marked. A contradictory portion of S. 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W. 3 is marked as Ex. D1. The accused has been examined u/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the incriminating pieces of the above evidence have been put to him and he was given an opportunity of explaining the same. Thereafter he has been given an opportunity to adduce defence evidence, but he did not choose to examine any witness. His defence is one of denial.

The learned Additional Sessions Judge scrutinized the entire prosecution evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution is able to establish the circumstances which clinchingly show that the accused is responsible for the deaths of his father as well as mother and hence he has been convicted under both the counts u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life besides fine of Rs. 150/ in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 12 days under the first count and fine of Rs. 100/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 8 days under the second count and directed that the substantive sentence of imprisonment for life under both the counts would run concurrently.

Aggrieved by the above judgment convicting the appellant u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code on two counts and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine on two counts, this appeal is preferred.

Mr. C. Damodar Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously contended that there is inordinate delay in lodging F.I.R. and that throws any amount of doubt on the prosecution version; that no motive is established and that neither possession of any poison with the accused is proved nor an opportunity to administer the same is established. He, therefore, urged that the appeal may be allowed and the conviction may be set aside. On the other hand Smt. Suseela Devi, learned Public Prosecutor, vehemently contended that the conviction of the appellant under both the counts is sustainable as the following circumstances are satisfactorily established by cogent and legal evidence,

(1) motive;

(2) the accused purchased two bottles of toddy;

(3) P.W. 1 saw the accused bringing toddy and prevailing upon the victims to consume the same;

(4) the accused was present till they consumed toddy and fell unconscious and then walked away;

(5) P.W. 5 detained him, and

(6) both the bottles and viscera of the deceased were found to contain Organo Phosphorus poison.

She, therefore, urged that the appeal may be dismissed.

Since it is a case of circumstantial evidence, we once again analysed the evidence on record, P.W. 1, D. Lingaiah is the younger brother of the accused and third son of the victims. He deposed that himself and his younger brothers and parents were living jointly as the accused Ramulu and Pochiah, who were married, were living separately. He further deposed that the accused Ramulu has been demanding for partition of the lands, but his father did not agree as some of them were yet to be married and that there were quarrels between his father and the accused in that regard. He then testified that on Sankranti day about 3 years ago, the accused brought two toddy bottles at about 7 p.m.; that his father was reluctant to consume toddy brought by him as he was not having cordial relationship with him, but his mother prevailed upon him stating that the accused had brought the toddy out of affection and hence he may take the toddy and later on both his parents consumed toddy brought by the accused. He then testified that within 5 to 10 minutes they fell down and became unconscious, and while they were being shifted on a double bullock cart to Government Hospital, they died. In the cross-examination it is elicited that while he was returning home, the accused came with toddy bottles and the accused had brought his father into the house from outside and his mother served food to him at that time and darkness had set in. It is suggested to him that his parents consumed toddy even before 7 p.m. on the date of incident, but he denied the same. It is also suggested that he stated before the police that his parents consumed today to a little extent and became unconscious and he admitted the same.

P.W. 2 (Amegani Pandaiah) has been selling toddy in the village and he deposed that the accused Ramulu came to his shop and purchased four bottles of toddy, out of which two bottles were consumed by him and the remaining two were carried with him about 3 years earlier and later he learnt that Maisaiah and Chennamma died.

P.W. 3 (Pedda Narasimha) a neighbour deposed that he heard cries from the house of Maisaiah and Chennamma at about lamp lighting time and he went there and found that both of them were unconscious. He arranged a bullock cart and shifted both the victims to Nedunur village for treatment and before they reached the hospital, both of them died, therefore, they were brought back on the same bullock cart. It is in his cross-examination that the accused Ramulu was not present when they shifted Maisaiah and Chennamma in a bullock cart.

P.W. 4 (Karre Ramaiah), who is a resident of same village testified that the accused has been living separately from his parents and that he has been demanding share in the properties from his father, but his father is not dividing the properties on the ground that three more sons are yet to be married. He further testified that on the day of Sankranti at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. about 3 years back, himself, Kathula Jangiah and Maisaiah (deceased) were conversing at the shop of one Vysya and the accused Ramulu came there and took his father to his house.

P.W. 5 (Dodda Chinnappa Reddy) deposed that the accused went to his house and complained that his brothers were attempting to kill him oh the ground that he was responsible for the death of his parents and thereupon he sent for two Kawalkars and entrusted him to them. He has been declared hostile by the prosecution and cross-examined. It is suggested to him that the accused had confessed before him that he killed his father in a planned way since he was not giving a share in the landed property and that he purchased two bottles of toddy and mixed poison and made his parents to consume the same on the festival day, but he denied the same. He has been confronted with his S. 161 Cr.P.C. statement and it is marked as Ex. P1. He however admitted in the further examination that Exs. P2 and P3 reports were written by him, but he added that he did so as per the instructions Of Sub-Inspector of Police.

P.W. 6 (Maddela Pentiah) is Kawalkar and he deposed that P.W. 5 summoned him about 3 years earlier and entrusted the accused Ramulu to him stating that he killed his parents and directed him to go to Police Station and bring the police. Accordingly they lodged the accused in a room and Yadiah was kept on guard and he went to the Police Station and brought the police. He did not however, lodge any report in the Police Station.

P.W. 7 (Dr. Surender Reddy) is the autopsy surgeon and he deposed that he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead bodies and preserved viscera to know the cause of death and sent it for analysis Ex. P4 is the report submitted by him and on receiving Chemical Analysis Report, he gave the opinion regarding cause of death of Maisaiah and Chennamma. Ex. P5 is the post mortem report relating to Chennamma and Ex. P6 is the report regarding cause of death of Maisaiah and Ex. P7 is opinion as to the cause of death of Chennamma and Ex. P8 is the Forensic Science Laboratory Report.

P.W. 8 (Kontham Narasimha Reddy) is the panch for inquest and scene of occurrence and seizure of the toddy bottles containing the remaining toddy that were allegedly poisoned by the accused and both the bottles were sent for chemical analysis and found to contain Organo Phosphorus poison. He also asserted in the cross-examination that the said toddy bottles with contents were seized.

P.WE.9 is the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police at the material time and he deposed regarding the earlier part of investigation while P.W. 10 (Ranga Reddy) Circle Inspector of Police is the main Investigating Officer and P.W. 11 is the successor of P.W. 10 and he filed the charge-sheet in this case.

After scrutinising the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, we now take up the contentions raised by both sides.

On the motive aspect Mr. Damodar Reddy contended that the so-called demand for partition or refusal of the deceased to divide the lands is no motive at all. He also argued that no evidence has been let in to show that there was any panchayat in the presence of elders or that there were any quarrels between the accused and the deceased in that connection. The evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 4 is relevant to this aspect. We carefully perused the same and found that both these witnesses have categorically stated that the accused has been demanding for share in the properties and the deceased has been negativing the same on the ground that three more sons were yet to be married. P.W. 4 (K. Ramaiah) is an independent witness and P.W. 1 is the son of the deceased and there is not suggestion to the effect that their version is not true. It is also not suggested to them as to why they were speaking falsehood. Evidently their testimony is unassailable and on that basis it can be held that the prosecution is able to establish that the accused bore illwill and grudge against his father for not heeding to his demand for partition. Thus, the motive for the crime is established.

It is next contended by Mr. Damodar Reddy that there is inordinate delay in lodging FIR. It is note-worthy that the person who lodged the First Information Report by name Gandiah who is the elder brother of the deceased Maisaiah, has not been examined and no importance has been attached to FIR. It is true that the incident occurred at about 7 or 7.30 p.m. on 15-1-1990 and the FIR came to be lodged at 2 p.m. on 16-1-1990 and since the informant has not gone into the box, nothing turns out in that connection.

It is then contended by Mr. Damodar Reddy that the prosecution is bound to establish four circumstances in a poison murder case viz.,

"1. There is a clear motive for an accused to administer poison to the deceased;

that the deceased died of poison said to have been administered;

that the accused had the poison in his possession;

that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased";

and he relied on a judgment of this Court reported in Vidya Nagar Housing Co-operative Society Ltd., Hyderabad Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, besides two other judgments of the Supreme Court viz., Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, and Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, . According to him, the sole circumstance that the deceased died of poison is made out in this case and hence it is not a fit case for conviction. Whereas Smt. Suseela Devi, learned Public Prosecutor contended that the motive is established and that the fact that the accused himself brought the contraband toddy bottles, which ultimately were found to contain Organe Phosphorus poison by the Chemical Examiner and since he himself brought them, it can be inferred that he had opportunity to administer poison. As regards the possession of poison, she argued that it is not necessary in all such cases to establish possession of poison nor is it possible or practicable and she relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court cited supra Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, , wherein it is held, (at p. 1104 of Cri LJ) "It cannot therefore be held that there should be acquittal on the failure of the prosecution to prove the possession of poison with the accused. Murder by poison is invariably committed under the cover and cloak of secrecy. Nobody will administer poison to another in the presence of others. The person who administers poison to another in secrecy will not keep a portion of it for the investigating officer to come and collect it. The person who commits such murder would naturally take care to eliminate and destroy the evidence against him. In such cases, it would be impossible for the prosecution to prove possession of poison with the accused. The prosecution may, however, establish other circumstance consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. The Court then would not be justified in acquitting the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove possession of the poison with the accused".

It is true that this Court as well as the Supreme Court has enlisted essential circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused in a poisoning case and we have applied our anxious consideration to various circumstances that are made out in this case. Though at the cost of repetition it may be stated that the motive for the offence is refusal of the deceased to partition the lands and that has been established. It is in the evidence of P.W. 2 that the accused had purchased four bottles of toddy, out of which he consumed two and carried the remaining two. The accused was seen by P.W. 1 bringing the toddy bottles and then he is the witness for the persuasion of his father to consume toddy and within five or ten minute they became unconscious. Hence it can be held with a reasonable certainty that it was the accused who made the deceased persons to drink toddy after poisoning it. It is also on record that the accused was present so long as they consumed toddy and became unconscious and he coolly walked away thereafter. That is most unnatural on the part of a son. It is also brought on record with the evidence of P.W. 6, Kavalkar, that P.W. 5 (Chinnappa Reddy) summoned him and directed to detain the accused as he had killed his parents. Although P.W. 5 was declared hostile, the fact that he called for P.W. 6 and another Kavawalkar and entrusted the accused Ramulu is not disputed and hence it is one of the circumstances that is to be taken into consideration and finally the very same bottles which were brought by accused and found at the scene of occurrence containing the remaining portion of toddy described as turbid liquid contained Organo Phosphorus poison and the viscera of both the accused also contained same poison.

It is strenuously argued by Mr. Damodar Reddy by pointing out from the evidence of P.W. 4 that he was not carrying anything when he took his father to his house. It is true he stated that he did not find anything with his father. It is possible that it being a dark night. P.W. 4 might not have noticed the toddy bottles if they are with him or it is also possible that the accused kept the toddy bottles somewhere before he met his father at Vysya''s shop.

All the above circumstances undoubtedly form a complete chain and all of them unerringly and clinchingly point to the guilt of the accused and they are incompatible with the innocence of the accused. We are, therefore, satisfied that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly found the accused guilty u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code on both counts and hence, the appeal is devoid of merit.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge in SC No. 161/1991 convicting the accused u/s 302 of Indian Penal Code on both the counts and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 150/- on first count and Rs. 100/- on the second count and default sentences and also the direction that the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

Appeal dismissed.